Dismissed

Santosh Mohindroo v. Kamlesh Alias Meena

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jan 2013CR/223/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition under Article 227. The court allowed no interference with the lower court's order rejecting the plaintiff's prayer for additional evidence in a suit for declaration of title, finding no justification given the plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to produce such evidence earlier. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the order subseque

What did the court decide?

Petitioner at liberty to challenge the order if the suit ultimately fails to be decided in his favor.

Santosh Mohindroo Vs Kamlesh Alias Meena — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR No.223 of 2013(O&M)

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.223 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: 15.01.2013

¶5

Smt. Santosh Mohindroo wife of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mohindroo, resident of Mohalla Saraswati Vihar, Dera Bassi, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Kamlesh alias Meena wife of Late Balraj Talwar son of Sh. Raghbir Parkash resident of Mohalla Saraswati Vihar, Dera Bassi, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Ravi K. Mattoo, Advocate

¶12

for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

¶15

2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO

¶16

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO

¶17

K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

¶18

The revision is against the order rejecting a prayer for additional evidence after the plaintiff had tendered his evidence and closed his side. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to establish his title on the basis of a sale deed said to have been executed by the defendant in her capacity of his power of attorney. The defence was that the sale deed was not true and the power of attorney was also not genuine. The burden of proof was wholly on the plaintiff to establish the contentions that he was pleading for. After the plaintiff side was closed and

¶19

[2]

¶20

CR No.223 of 2013(O&M)

¶21

the defendant had given evidence, the plaintiff has sought for additional evidence to summon some officials from the registration department and some records relating to electricity connection and also certain records of Municipal Corporation as well. The Court has rejected the contention finding that there was no justification for such a prayer, when the plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to produce evidence in respect of matters on which the burden of proof was only on the plaintiff.

¶22

I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution, for, the impugned order was passed at the interlocutory stage.

¶23

The civil revision is dismissed.

¶24

The petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the correctness of the order if at all, the suit ultimately were to be decided against him, as a ground of appeal.

¶25

15^th January, 2013 Rajan

¶26

( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE

Santosh Mohindroo v. Kamlesh Alias Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Mohindroo v. Kamlesh Alias Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avinash Kumar Vs Sukhwinder Kaur and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Puri & Another Vs Kiran Behl and Others

Hem Raj Vs Kedar Nath and Anr.

Rattan Devi Vs Pargat Singh

(O&M)Rattan Devi Vs Vijay Kumar

Varun Goyal Vs M/S Allied Properties